July 13, 2013

From the Miami Herald. (Expect slow loading due to heavy web traffic.)

Will the jury's repudiation of the national media's Narrative cause any second thoughts about the press's prejudices that caused so many to get this story so wrong for so long? It would be nice to hope that this long, sad story at least causes a few people to notice the biases of the conventional wisdom.

I knew white women would give everything a fair hearing. I doubt more than 5% of blacks in the country (male or female) would go along with a "not guilty" verdict, though. Just one of them and it's a hung jury.

An open-and-shut case of self-defense on the part of a neighborhood watch captain guilty of nothing more than asking a question of an unfamiliar youth walking around. The police suggested Zimmerman not get out of the car and communicate with Zimmerman because the police were trying to protect Zimmerman from a possible killer, not because Zimmerman getting out of his car and communicating with someone in his neighborhood was wrong or somehow illegal.

Lesson: if you are new and unfamiliar to someone who lives in a neighborhood, don't try to kill him when he asks you who you are.

it would have been better for the cause of white rights had zimmerman been convicted. That would have broken the hold that white race guilt propagnda has on many white minds. Not so great for zimmie, of course.

I'll bet Holder holds an emergency press conference (by tomorrow at the very latest) and announces the civil suit. The Obama administration is waging war on white people and they are ready for the next battle in that war.

A lot of people assume Holder will go after Zimmerman for violating Martin's civil rights. I'd like someone knowledgeable about the law to discuss whether or not this is possible. What would be the violation? I think the trial of the officers involved in the Rodney King beating had to do with them being police officers and that the same standards might not apply to Zimmerman.

People only care about the latest buzz, and the buzz will return to the Narrative or Imperative.

In Stalin's Russia, history books were censored and old photos removed to rewrite history. But books matter much less now. It's all about the buzz of the electronic media. The buzz defines reality, the present, and the past. If it's not in the constant buzz, it might as well not even exist.

So, there's no need to censor old books and remove photographs. If the buzz ignores the verdict and moves onto something else to further the narrative--maybe another person with a blanket near a college--, that will be the reality.

Correction. "The police suggested Zimmerman not get out of the car and communicate with Martin because the police were trying to protect Zimmerman from a possible killer, not because Zimmerman's getting out of his car and communicating with someone in his neighborhood was wrong or somehow illegal." In the heat of the moment, I didn't proofread; sorry.

All the respect in the world to the female jurors. That really took some balls, so to speak, even though it was to do the right thing. I'm sure there are a lot of people who wouldn't hesitate to hurt them right now if they had a chance. May they stay safe.

A lot of white liberals will bitch and rant EVEN THOUGH they know deep in their hearts that Zimmerman is not guilty.

Why? It's part of their moral narcissism and social conformism.

It's like if a bunch of loonies in a church go into 'rapture', other members feel obligated to follow along whether they feel the spirit or not. It's about being part of the holy community.

Liberals are into their own version of speaking in tongues. It doesn't matter what comes out of their mouths. It's the 'spirit' that counts, and the narrative says that their hearts are soooooooo full of goodwill and wonderfulness. They just love the sanctimonious sound of themselves spouting, "Oh my God, this is such a racist society blah blah, I'm soooooo shocked, I can't believe it, boo hoo, I am soooo ashamed to be an American... blah blah."

Of course, it makes them feel so good and so holy to spout such nonsense.

I can see Diane Sawyer weeping and going, "Oh my, a poor poor kid killed for eating skittles by a southern white man. It's Jim Crow all over again." It's utter BS, but she will feel so much better and others of her ilk will hug her. The likes of Zimmerman get mugged, the likes of liberals who spout BS get hugged.

Im just watching it on the BBC. The reporter is saying the case raises issues such as that as profiling. He then goes on to stumble through making his point that, er, certain people may be upset. Manages not to say which people.

The cognitive dissonance - live!

Even as he's saying it he realises he's about to profile a certain group as riot suspects! And he knows profiling is wrong.

I am SOOO happy to eat crow. It seems Christmas came early this year. And no, it was not that "women are too dumb to be on juries" but that they are more obedient to authority, more PC, more fans of "Diversity" and magical un-thinking about crime and violence and race. And HATE HATE HATE beta males.

After all, there was at least one (possibly more) juror that wanted to hear more about Manslaughter (likely considering that charge). White women after all, failed to convict John Edwards (as he flirted with them on the jury) or the Menendez brothers or OJ and the prosecution which presumably had the most expensive jury consultants were happy with the makeup of the jury.

The Prosecutor and Judge were both White women. The jury seemed to really react badly however to both and THANKED the Defense team for explaining the law.

My guess is that the women were not sufficiently insulated from the joys of diversity and PC and multiculturalism as women in California and New York. If Florida is the future of America, then in the future everyone not the ultra rich will be burglarized by Trayvon Martin.

If I had to guess, Zimmerman has to thank a leader among the women who was able to break down the objections of the female jurors who wanted to convict to make the Authorities happy.

Whiskey: all those rants about how White women hatehatehate beta men, that long since went beyond amusing, beyond annoying and landed square on just tedious? DO just SHUT UP now, m'kay squidgems? Thanks

Ladies and gentlemen, it is now time for a quote from your favorite iSteve commenter:

Zimmerman is toast sadly. An all female jury. Judge Judy? Toast.

Whiskey

7/12/13, 12:07 AM

As far as I know, Whiskey's record as a contrarian indicator is perfect. Remember that time when he said Avatar was going to be a flop? I read his comments just for the off chance that he ventures into stock tips.

"The Rev. Al Sharpton blasted a Florida jury's not guilty verdict of George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin, calling it an "atrocity" and a "a slap in the face to those that believe in justice in this country."

"Well, I think that this is an atrocity," Sharpton said moments after the verdict was read on MSNBC.

"I think that it is probably one of the worst situations that I've seen. What this jury has done is establish a precedent that when you are young and fit a certain profile, you can be committing no crime, just bringing some Skittles and iced tea home to your brother, and be killed. And someone can claim self-defense having been exposed with all kinds of lies, all kinds of inconsistencies."

He added that it was a " sad day in the country and a "slap in the face to those that believe in justice in this country.""

So much moral preening going on from white people who make 110% sure to insulate themselves and their families from the Trayvon Martins of America.

These are people with three-digit IQs who have no problem getting into good colleges, holding down complex jobs, etc. But when it becomes a moral imperative to be ignorant then they suddenly can't do nuance. The whole case is suddenly "unarmed teen with skittles and iced tea shot by a white man."

The psychology behind it is: these are people whose entire political identity is wrapped up in being anti-racist, which makes them the moral betters of those Southern (or otherwise) whites who Notice Things about kids who look and dress and act like Trayvon.

They then get a free pass to continue insulating, insulating, insulating themselves and their families from Trayvon Martin and his like.

The real tragedy is that blacks could do so much better in America if these friendly whites would take their boots off the black man's neck.

This is great news, but let's not forget: this trial should never have happened. The cops and the original attorneys investigated and said there was no evidence of anything but self-defense. It was clear from the start that the trial was forced for political reasons.

Will Zimmerman get back the time and money he spent on this trial? Will the state provide him with bodyguards to protect him from any other honorary "Sons of Obama" who might decide to apply some racial justice, now that his face has been splashed across their TVs?

One purpose of this trial was to tell gun owners: "If you think you're going to defend yourself with that gun, you'd better think twice, because we might make your life hell anyway. Why not go home and hide and hope the cops get there in time?" That message was sent, whether Zimmerman was railroaded on into prison or not.

Just a question: Isn't it unhelpful to the cause of Martin's beatification to repetitively invoke "Skittles n' soda" in some kind of sorry poetic flourish? The kid purchased for to mix up purple drank using cough syrup/codeine back at the house. I don't consider it as salient as his intoxicated decision to engage a creepy cracker in a drag-down fight but generally that remains good advice for youths, not to wander dark streets in a daze, whether or not it's to buy junk at the gouger-mart. I hope stoners' snack runs aren't enshrined as "civil rights" yet.

Whiskey wrote, "And no, it was not that "women are too dumb to be on juries" but that they are more obedient to authority, more PC, more fans of "Diversity" and magical un-thinking about crime and violence and race. And HATE HATE HATE beta males."

And that is why people on this blog are so concerned about who controls the media and the narrative.

Why do you fight us so much on that issue when you clearly understand how impressionable women are?

I expect an increase in crime over the next couple of weeks. On Facebook/twitter, black people are livid, posting statuses about how "justice does not exist" every 2-3 minutes. Another popular meme that is being shared is about Vick going to jail for killing dogs while Zimmerman goes free for killing Trayvon. Some of them seem to want to start a fight.

"This is great news, but let's not forget: this trial should never have happened."

True, but I'm sort of glad it happened cuz the entire nation saw the likes of Jeantel tell it like it be. And they saw how an innocent man who was trying to protect his neighborhood was railroaded by the media, the government, the judge, and etc.

"Zimmerman initiated the encounter. Not in dispute.He was armed when this was not customary for a neighborhood watch "captain." Not in dispute.Martin was unarmed. Not in dispute.Martin is dead. Zimmerman shot him. Not in dispute."

The "Z. initiated the encounter/conflict/confrontation" chirp is the most common and pretzely of the sophistries. 'Encounter' as in "encounter between two persons in the street" is substituted in place of 'encounter' as in "legally significant encounter wherein lethal firearm force came into play".

Additionally, they all seem wholly ignorant of the fact that Martin doubled back. The top comment ends with this:

"This was jury nullification."

I.e., the jury intentionally opposed a verdict they were otherwise legally compelled to choose solely to protest for or against some principle. What reason does this commenter and 300+ NYT nod-and-sighers have in mind?

I'd bet that one or more of the women on the jury had real life experience of some kind with an individual who roughly matched Trayvon's vital statistics.

Not necessarily victimized, but probably intimidated at some point.

I'd bet that Zimmerman's lack of machismo, mild demeanor and unimposing physical stature helped the jury feel more empathy towards him; he looked and acted like he'd get beaten up by Trayvon. Maybe in certain contexts white women pity males like him, rather than hate them.

"My guess is that the women were not sufficiently insulated from the joys of diversity and PC and multiculturalism as women in California and New York. If Florida is the future of America, then in the future everyone not the ultra rich will be burglarized by Trayvon Martin."

Spot on, Whiskey.

Not enough was said about Olivia Bertalan, the woman with a baby who experienced the home invasion, but I think she was the second most powerful witness after John Good despite having nothing to do with witnessing the fight.

I related so profoundly to her, especially my younger, poorer 20s self. And this is my neck of the woods, so I knew there would be some, most, women on the jury who would strongly relate to her or have a daughter like her.

I truly believed that most of the women would become, and remain, steadfast in finding him not guilty as a result of what happened to Olivia Bertalan plus how sweet and helpful George was to her.

O'Mara was so brilliant to focus on her again in his closing and even called her the face of the frustration going on in that community. For me, to be against Zimmerman is to be against Olivia and her baby.

Efficient Baxter, the NY Times moderates comments and publishes very few that don't agree with what the NY Times wants to be said. The Times might as well write the comments themselves; maybe they do. Its not 1 in 10 tries that I ever see one of my comments published and I'm always polite. I often see rather nasty, dare I say "hateful," comments but those always agree with the typical NY Times poing of view.

May Mr. Zimmerman henceforth enjoy an uneventful and pleasant life. Let's hope that Mr. Zimmerman's suit against NBC nets him a vast fortune sufficient for him to enjoy retirement in safety and splendor.

Speaking of delusional, 8:51--you don't think the WH boiler room will milk this for the next week at least? Zim doesn't have to be uniformed to run afoul of various arcane options on the Civil Rights Div menu. He is hardly home-free, not by a long shot.

Thank goodness, i might get a visa & come over rhe pond after all. Honestly, what with the existential worry about your( America's) future and the personal concern about being mugged by vibrant youth I just couldn't do it. Now there's ONE ray of sunshinein the gloom. Australian Lurkerl

But I will say I wish to God that George Zimmerman would have followed the advice of the police dispatcher."

Then again it is quite possible, had Zimmerman not shot him, that little Master Trayvon would have some day featured in one of those bitter-sweet news stories about an aspiring rapper who was getting his life back together and who truly loved his baby son,........ but who unfortunately fell in with the wrong kind of people.

I'm waiting for all the guys on here who said that a female jury would be too dumb to serve justice to George Zimmerman to eat their words.

Gloria"

I never wrote such a thing, but I did think as much - not that women are too dumb to discharge their duties as jurors, but that they are more readily swayed by emotion, and seem more likely to buy into the PC pieties of our age. I still think that to be the case, based on my own experience. But I was happy to be proved wrong in this case, and I think you are indeed entitled to a little gloating. Perhaps it's getting more difficult, even for nice white ladies, to ignore the widespread phenomenon of BBB.

At this point, the libs don't care anymore, they got their mileage out of it, getting Obama into office a second term. It would be such a headache for them to have to deal with covering up for widespread black misbehavior after another replay of the LA riots. Especially now that this time, everyone has a digital camera in their phone and the internet.

I'd bet that Zimmerman's lack of machismo, mild demeanor and unimposing physical stature helped the jury feel more empathy towards him; he looked and acted like he'd get beaten up by Trayvon. Maybe in certain contexts white women pity males like him, rather than hate them.

Yeah, like Baby-face, eh.

I suspect that those women just needed a rationalization to vote their emotions and many women go for a killer.

O'Mara gave them that rationalization when he reminded them of that woman and her baby.

Just as Johnnie Cochrane gave those black women on OJ's jury a rationalization to vote their hate of white women who grab eligible black males.

Zimmerman is so far from being out of the woods. I think it's a near certainty that Eric "my people" Holder and Trayvon's dad Obama will bring "civil rights" charges against Zimmerman. It's just a matter of when.

I think I remember plenty of predictions here of guilty or hung jury, not just from Whiskey. Most of these had a really high degree of certainty. Ideology makes stupid.

I predicted two things, a not guilty verdict and the liberal response. I was right on the verdict, but so far, from what little I've seen, I'm wrong on the response. They're doubling down, claiming that the prosecution proved its case and that it's "OK to shoot innocent black teenagers now." My prediction was for the more subdued, "None of this would have occurred if it weren't for unconscious bias against blacks, especially young black males." I predicted they'd downplay the concrete (no pun) question of guilt or innocence. From the little I've seen, looks like I was wrong.

I just read the comments to the NYT story on this, hitting the "Recommend" link at the appropriate places. They run about 90/10 in the expected direction. Lots of anger. They're angrier than the commentariat here would have been if the verdict went the other way. The 10 percent in favor of the verdict maintain a race-blind attitude. I didn't see a single suggestion that profiling (i.e. pattern recognition) is an indispensable tool for dealing with reality.

"I encourage all of you to go to your favorite leftist website and read some of the responses there."

-Who has a favorite leftist site? 5 minutes of the blind stupidity dripping off those pages and I'm getting so annoyed by how much it is f*cking up the country, I have to switch back to iSteve.

"Another popular meme that is being shared is about Vick going to jail for killing dogs while Zimmerman goes free for killing Trayvon."

"They do have a point about Michael Vick's sentence."

-What point? Vick was malicious towards the dog, not the other way around. If the case had been that Vick were trying to confront a dog, after roving packs of dogs had been breaking into homes in his neighborhood, and that dog attacked him, leading him to kill it in self-defense, I'm quite sure a jury would have also found him not guilty.

"I was right on the verdict, but so far, from what little I've seen, I'm wrong on the response. They're doubling down, claiming that the prosecution proved its case and that it's "OK to shoot innocent black teenagers now." My prediction was for the more subdued,"

It's amateur hour late Saturday evening -- if the verdict had been released on Monday morning, there'd be lots of professional spin out there, with complicated sentence construction. Instead, this is the liberal id unveiled.

Good verdict, but it shows how delusional the average iSteve reader is.

It seems iSteve's been attracting more delusional commenters over the last couple years or so. I started reading this blog at least a decade ago, and as the tone of the blog changed over the last few years, the commenter profile changed as well.

The funny thing about the trial is the black person who took the stand for Martin was a total idiot(the fat Jeantel) but the black guy who took the stand for Zimmerman(his police training teacher) was a quality black guy.

Since the quality black guy gave his approval to Zimmerman, Zimmy was cleared of 'racism'.

Instead the media and officialdom were deliberately dishonest. Right from the beginning. Just one example: compare when fotos of Martin as a child appeared to when fotos showing the extent of Zimmerman's injuries appeared.

Not to mention the NBC editing scandal.

Etc etc.

As one of Zimmerman's lawyers just said: this prosecution was "disgraceful".

Don't forget the people most aware Zimmerman isn't White were in the courtroom. The jury didn't find a White man not guilty so most of the talk about the racial psychology *inside* the court is off-base.

The biggest effect of this show trial will be lots of White people getting attacked and maybe killed because of the media.

"The last thing Obama needs right now, other than a black riot, is for is AG to go after Zimmerman for civil rights violations."

No riots so far. I wonder if blacks are feeling calmer because Zimmerman isn't really white. He doesn't look like big bad rednecks but like a nice pudgy guy. But suppose Zimmerman looked like a big hillbilly.

I'm still torn on this one. On the one hand, Zimmerman instigated the conflict by stalking Martin when the police were already on their way. What options did Martin have? Run? That's what blacks used to do and they would become suspected of wrongdoing because they ran.

Did Zimmerman really fear for his life, knowing he had a firearm as insurance? Is it possible he deliberately created the confrontation knowing he had a firearm?

The prosecution was inept. It's reasonable to argue that Martin was standing his ground, which they could have done more with.

Isn't stalking illegal?

If the roles were reversed, as in Martin was stalking Zimmerman, and it led to a physical altercation, wouldn't Zimmerman have had the right to stand his ground?

The purpose of your dishonst sophist BS is to push the idea that doing almost anything around a black teen that he doesn't like counts as justified provocation for him to attack you and for you (if White) to therefore lose any claim to self-defense.

- If you're an unfamiliar person in a neighborhood, someone in that neighborhood is perfectly justified in asking you who you are and where you're going (and such interlocutors, being human, will display varying degrees of politeness and couth)

- It's fine to carry a legal firearm if your state permits it

- If x pulls a gun on y and makes a credible, scary threat, anyone who says y will respond by running a good number of yards toward x and jumping on him is a fantasist

- If you double back on a neighborhood interlocutor, jump on top of him, and start slamming his head into the pavement in anger, you are an aggressor and you are committing not only assault and battery but also attempted homicide

- If you're in Florida, a Stand Your Ground state, and you are committing assault and battery and attempted homicide, you're asking to get dead quick

- Exiting your sedan in your own neighborhood and taking a walk, even to keep an eye on a neighbor or visitor, is totally lawful, and is especially understandable if you're a Watch captain; and any police suggestion not to do so is plainly friendly advice intended to protect you from a possible bad guy, not an order with the force of law implying that *you* are a bad guy

- etc.

Are there really people so out of touch with reality that any particle of the above is news to them or doesn't make sense to them? If so, where did these people grow up? How did they live this long without knowing how to act? And who ties their shoelaces for them?

Dumb troll: "I'm still torn on this one. On the one hand, Zimmerman instigated the conflict by stalking Martin when the police were already on their way. What options did Martin have? Run? That's what blacks used to do and they would become suspected of wrongdoing because they ran."

Zimmerman didn't "stalk" Martin, nor is following someone a crime. Per Zimmerman's non-emergency call (not to mention the testimony of Precious, who was on the phone with Martin at the time), after approaching Zimmerman's car, attempting to intimidate him, and noticing Zimmerman was on the phone, Martin did run, ducking between buildings to get out of sight of Zimmerman. From their, Martin could have strolled at a leisurely pace and been back to his father's mistress's condo (where Trayvon was staying after having been expelled from school and kicked out of his mother's house for some combination of drugs, burglary, and punching a bus driver) well before Zimmerman got off the phone with the NEN operator. Instead, Martin either laid in wait for 4:00 minutes or walked home and doubled back before initiating a physical confrontation by punching Zimmerman in the face as Zimmerman was headed back to his vehicle.

The purpose of your dishonst sophist BS is to push the idea that doing almost anything around a black teen that he doesn't like counts as justified provocation for him to attack you and for you (if White) to therefore lose any claim to self-defense.

David;No, leftists can't understand those facts. People who are progressives operate on a meta-reality. Reality is what they believe it to be. Facts that contradict their meta-reality are simply invisible. All humans operate to some extent in this way, we have to simplify the physical universe around us and reduce it to simplified abstractions that we can process. Leftist are people who have to operate at a more abstracted level in order to maintain their meta-reality. They are a little like the apocryphal stories about South Sea natives who were unable to see European sailing ships when they first showed up because the ships were too far outside their consensus version of reality.

- If you're an unfamiliar person in a neighborhood, someone in that neighborhood is perfectly justified in asking you who you are and where you're going (and such interlocutors, being human, will display varying degrees of politeness and couth)

Perhaps geography/type of community is the difference. Most complexes I've lived in during my 20's in LA, I was unfamiliar with, at least, half of the neighbors. No one ever followed me or asked me what I was doing there. If someone who looked like Zimmerman started following me, I would have not gone to my unit, allowing them know where I lived.

- If x pulls a gun on y and makes a credible, scary threat, anyone who says y will respond by running a good number of yards toward x and jumping on him is a fantasist

- If you double back on a neighborhood interlocutor, jump on top of him, and start slamming his head into the pavement in anger, you are an aggressor and you are committing not only assault and battery but also attempted homicide

I didn't suggest the first happened and, to be honest, no one can say for sure if the second happened the way it was described.

- Exiting your sedan in your own neighborhood and taking a walk, even to keep an eye on a neighbor or visitor, is totally lawful, and is especially understandable if you're a Watch captain; and any police suggestion not to do so is plainly friendly advice intended to protect you from a possible bad guy, not an order with the force of law implying that *you* are a bad guy

And that is why I'm torn. Maybe torn is too strong of a word. I'm uncommitted in how I feel about the whole case or verdict.

Aaron Gross: @Anonymous, yes, it was the certainty of the predictions that I was calling stupid. Also, the way they were so ideology-driven. Not the predicted outcomes themselves.

The reason that these predictions were so certain about a guilty verdict had to do with the media's narrative. The idea that jurors are immune to societal influence and pressure is ridiculous. Ultimately, these people will end up taking flak for their verdict. Commenters here were simply alluding to the difficulty of bucking the public's expectations.

anon:"I did think as much - not that women are too dumb to discharge their duties as jurors, but that they are more readily swayed by emotion, and seem more likely to buy into the PC pieties of our age"

I think the prosecution failed when they didn't get a black person, preferably a woman, onto the jury. My impression is that most whites will start predisposed towards the preferred narrative, but will also listen to the evidence and change their minds if it's strong enough. I suspect that goes for even many of the vile commenters in New York Times threads. Most American blacks won't do that.

"to be honest, no one can say for sure if the second happened the way it was described."

Don't say "to be honest" - just say "you don't think" that's the way it happened. Now that would be honest. The forensics point that way, but you don't think that's how it happened. And you're entitled to your view. Just don't expect the rest of us to ignore the evidence pointing to Trayvon's attack on George.

You may not think you were suggesting it, but that is what your comments suggest.

This isn't directed at you per se, but the numb nuts who are reading too much into my comments and making wild conclusions on what my political background is and insulting me. Some of you are way too emotional about this case.

This particular case seems clear cut to you, ONLY because Zimmerman profiled correctly(and there is nothing wrong with profiling). But what troubles me is when the next Zimmerman profiles incorrectly and gets acquitted, because dead men tell no tales.

The forensics point that way, but you don't think that's how it happened. And you're entitled to your view. Just don't expect the rest of us to ignore the evidence pointing to Trayvon's attack on George.

Good one. The forensics say that Martin was pounding Zim's head against the ground. So what? Is there any evidence to refute the possibility that Zim initiated contact first?

"Liberals are into their own version of speaking in tongues. It doesn't matter what comes out of their mouths. It's the 'spirit' that counts, and the narrative says that their hearts are soooooooo full of goodwill and wonderfulness."

Hehe, speaking in tongues. Good stuff.

I pissed off a purple-haired lesbian wearing a "Free Mumia" t-shirt once by saying "I hope he fries." I didn't realize her friends were around, and sheesh, can these people get emotional with their frenzied BS. The purple-haired lesbian set are actual true believers, unlike the Oprah-watching set. Get an Oprah-watcher one-on-one and half the time you can get them to admit they don't really believe what they're saying or to concede that even if some things aren't completely true, unless you want to stir the pot it's important to affirm them anyway. Not so with the purple-haired lesbians.

>Perhaps geography/type of community is the difference. Most complexes I've lived in during my 20's in LA, I was unfamiliar with, at least, half of the neighbors. No one ever followed me or asked me what I was doing there.<

I think you're right. Suburbia (or the idealized suburbia Zimmerman apparently and hearteningly made of that place in his mind) usually works a bit differently, there's a kind of neighborliness/inoffensive-nosiness as the background assumption. In Mexico City, I live in an apartment building, and I've been asked twice by older residents (i.e. > 40s) who I am and where I'm going (and they looked rather frightened and indignant when they asked me, not friendly/curious). I hasten to assure all iSteve-ers that I didn't jump them, break their noses, and grind them into the ground. I answered politely in my broken Spanish in a charming way. Now I'm fairly known in the building and (this is Mexico, remember, land of "people persons," for better or worse) I make a point of chatting every time I run across someone. (My landlady strongly endorses this.) As an insensitive loner, I find this rather strange but less and less unpleasant as mañana chases mañana.

I'd probably be on my guard if someone were watching or following me, in most apt. complexes. But still my reaction would likely be to approach them half-way and give them an opportunity to ask their burning question. Maybe that would be my mistake.

Putnam's celebrated Bowling Alone is a good study of social disintegration in modern America. Neighborly suburbia is probably on the way out. Zimmerman's actions are heartening because he cared. Putnam concluded from his research that non-homogenous societies, including "multicultural" ones, have low social capital, low social glue; no one cares - neither to repair a broken window nor to ask anyone what they're doing. And that's why those societies fall apart across time.

The liberal conventional wisdom has become that Zimmerman was acquitted due to the jury being six white women even though the media has stated very clearly that one of the jurors was not white. I guess the "reality-based" community has decided to change the facts to suit their narrative.

Regarding the filing of civil rights charges by the Feds against someone who was insufficiently punished by a state court: There was a case in the midwest several years ago where a couple of White teens beat up a 25 year old Mexican who was cuddling up with a 14 year old White girl. The Mexican died, but the jury decided that the boys hadn't intended to kill him and so convicted them of involuntary manslaughter. The Feds stepped in and sent them away for decades. No doubt somebody here recalls the case better than I and could look it up. The point is, these White boys were not agents of the state, but the feds got them anyway. If Zimmerman is allowed to go free it will be because it is politically inexpedient to subject him to double jeopardy.

Thank goodness for the jury system. I wonder if Obama and Holder will indict him for a civil rights violation.

Ben Jealous, the very light skinned head of the NAACP, confirmed he has discussed pursuing civil rights violation with Holder after the verdict. Evidently "Black leadership" had an all night conference call in regards to next step. Meet the Press has dropped some of their scheduled guests and Rev. Al is flying in, I'm sure he'll provide sober rational analysis.

On the one hand, Zimmerman instigated the conflict by stalking Martin when the police were already on their way. What options did Martin have? Run? That's what blacks used to do and they would become suspected of wrongdoing because they ran.

Did Zimmerman really fear for his life, knowing he had a firearm as insurance? Is it possible he deliberately created the confrontation knowing he had a firearm?

And then Anon 2 said:

The purpose of your dishonst sophist BS is to push the idea that doing almost anything around a black teen that he doesn't like counts as justified provocation for him to attack you and for you (if White) to therefore lose any claim to self-defense.

and then Anon 1 said:

You're an *****.

Reread my post, because I wasn't suggesting that at all.

Yes you were. You are now being a dishonest dipshit.

Martin was on top of him beating on him, and if that went on Zimmerman would be dead today.

I'm waiting for all the guys on here who said that a female jury would be too dumb to serve justice to George Zimmerman to eat their words.

Gloria

Why not commend all of us who said a jury full of southern white women (with no blacks) was perfectly capable of doing (and likely to do) the right thing? :)

I wonder if any of the White women on the jury have ever had a personal bad experience with Sub Saharan yoofs and there for could relate more with George Zimmerman. Hence the not guilty verdict.

There are far fewer southern women as in the dark about blacks as elsewhere. There are just too many blacks, in too many numbers and across too much territory, for many of southern women to be so ignorant. It doesn't take a "personal bad experience"; non-blacks see them everywhere in numbers: their driving, their antics as pedestrians and shoppers, etc. Not just their crime. They're impossible to miss.

Something like, what? Five jurors were mothers? Their kids either will have to go to school with blacks, or have had to, or their parents have had to put them in private school to escape blacks, or will have to.

Lesson: if you are new and unfamiliar to someone who lives in a neighborhood, don't try to kill him when he asks you who you are.

Blacks would be well-served by being far less parochial, and learning not to bring their hood-rat ethics with them everywhere they go.

But this time, it looks like libs will have to eat Jim Crow.

I'm stealing that...

Anyway a women only jury shows how much the system is subordinated to feminism and it is a civility shame no matter what.

On one hand I agree, but on the other, just playing the numbers, I'd rather have no blacks and no men than have both on the jury.

I am SOOO happy to eat crow. It seems Christmas came early this year. And no, it was not that "women are too dumb to be on juries" but that they are more obedient to authority, more PC, more fans of "Diversity" and magical un-thinking about crime and violence and race. And HATE HATE HATE beta males.

Lol, you're such a dickbag.

My guess is that the women were not sufficiently insulated from the joys of diversity and PC and multiculturalism as women in California and New York.

Such a cheesy dickbag. That's not your guess, you dipshit, IT'S WHAT I TOLD YOU AT THE TIME WHEN YOU MADE YOUR "HE'S TOAST" PREDICTION. I told you southern/north Florida white women aren't so Cal/LA women, dipshit.

You've just got to be doing this obtuse asshole thing on purpose. Nobody's that obtuse an asshole by accident.

I read his comments just for the off chance that he ventures into stock tips.

Lol.

"unarmed teen with skittles and iced tea shot by a white man [redacted]."

Gloria:I remember stating that Zim was screwed because women tend to favor gun control more than men.

I'll eat the crow.

You were partly right: I'd have preferred a jury of 5 white men and 1 hispanic man.

I expect an increase in crime over the next couple of weeks. On Facebook/twitter, black people are livid, posting statuses about how "justice does not exist" every 2-3 minutes. Another popular meme that is being shared is about Vick going to jail for killing dogs while Zimmerman goes free for killing Trayvon. Some of them seem to want to start a fight.

You have to keep it simple for them:

Vick went to jail because he broke the law, and Zimmerman went free because he didn't.

Or

You wanted OJ to go free when he was guilty, and you wanted Zimmerman to go to jail when he was not guilty.

Wasn't he right about AVATAR being the biggest bomb of all time?

No, I called Avatar: I said it would make zillions, and suck.

The FBI has already investigated and found no evidence of a hate crime. I will be very surprised if holder et al try to go after GZ... although maybe nothing should surprise me at this point.

My assessment is similar. I wouldn't be surprised either way, but at this point, all the people who are watching who have any sense of justice and the rule of law (admittedly, a population that is probably on the decline) aren't going to take kindly to D'Wan extending the witch hunt and show trial.

Good verdict, but it shows how delusional the average iSteve reader is.

Oh yes, Obama's coming to get Zimmerman, you guys!

Why don't you sign your posts, so we can hold you to your words? Oh, right, cuz you're a wuss. I wouldn't be too sure about Obama going after Zim.

I'd bet that one or more of the women on the jury had real life experience of some kind with an individual who roughly matched Trayvon's vital statistics.

A commenter at legal insurrection blog:

I think not guilty verdicts probably come from B-37 (used to have a concealed carry permit), E-6 (husband has guns) and E-40 (safety officer who’s been a victim of crime). So I think they are hung right now with an edge to acquittal.

"My guess is that the women were not sufficiently insulated from the joys of diversity and PC and multiculturalism as women in California and New York. If Florida is the future of America, then in the future everyone not the ultra rich will be burglarized by Trayvon Martin."

Spot on, Whiskey.

Oh FFS, I give up.

Were I Zimmerman's attorney, I'd file civil rights charges against the NAACP for purposefully going after GZ because of HIS race. After all, were he black, they'd not attack him.

Indeed. Although, the defense will be, were he black, the police would have arrested him on the spot, and he'd have been charged.

-What point? Vick was malicious towards the dog, not the other way around. If the case had been that Vick were trying to confront a dog, after roving packs of dogs had been breaking into homes in his neighborhood, and that dog attacked him, leading him to kill it in self-defense, I'm quite sure a jury would have also found him not guilty.

See, this is what I was talking about above. That's way to complicated for blacks. You need something simple and catchy, preferably something that rhymes. Like this:

If his head was split, you muss acquit.If you fall for that shit, you're a twit.

Let's not be too quick to rush to condemn Whiskey's prediction about the female jury. Yes, Zimmerman got acquitted, and rightly so. But why did it take them so long? 15 hours of deliberating on such an obvious case?

Somebody in that jury needed convincing. At least one person. Maybe more. Right now, we don't know how it all went down. It may have been one strong pro-Zimmerman woman dragging the rest along reluctantly. But the request for information on manslaughter suggests it was no slam dunk.

Since America is the Land of Celebrity, I'm certain at least one of those women will try for her 15 minutes by selling her "EXCLUSIVE!" story to the press, and we'll learn what happened in the deliberations. I also expect some press perfidy in revealing the women's identities (someone in the AG's office will leak the info out of spite, just you wait).

In any case, the good guys won for a change. And Black Run America and their Liberal media enablers can go stuff it.

The last thing Obama needs right now, other than a black riot, is for is AG to go after Zimmerman for civil rights violations.

I tend to agree. If there's anything Obama's worried about above all else, it's Obama. I don't see that going after Zim gets Obama anything he wants. Maybe he'll play the magnanimity card: "now is the time for mercy, for healing."

I'm still torn on this one. On the one hand, Zimmerman instigated the conflict by stalking Martin when the police were already on their way. What options did Martin have? Run? That's what blacks used to do and they would become suspected of wrongdoing because they ran.

Lol. Martin did run, before he doubled back and then assaulted and beat Zimmerman. Seems like he had a lot of options. But, why wasn't running an option, again? Because the police who weren't there might suspect him of something? Frame him for a crime he didn't commit, and thus lay the foundation for an awesome action TV show?

Back in reality, blacks sure don't feel much pressure not to run from police, as far as I can tell.

Did Zimmerman really fear for his life, knowing he had a firearm as insurance? Is it possible he deliberately created the confrontation knowing he had a firearm?

As I posted at glpiggy:

Upon further reflection, I realized that I don’t think I understand this “Martin was unarmed (and that’s soo relevant!)” thing at all. Can someone explain it to me?

Here’s a hypothetical.

Unarmed man attacks armed man. Armed man refuses to defend himself with his weapon, because hey, it’s not fair to fight an unarmed man with a weapon. Unarmed man takes weapon from armed man. Previously unarmed man has become armed man, and kills previously armed-but-too-stupid-to-live man with his shiny new weapon.

Did I leave something out? So, how do armed men avoid becoming previously alive, previously armed, too-stupid-to-live men? Any ideas?

I'd love to know how Zimmerman "created" the situation where his nose was broken, his face battered, his head split, his shirt covered in blood, etc.

Explain that one to me? How did Zimmerman "create" the situation where Martin assaulted him? 'Cause negroes got no agency?

The prosecution was inept. It's reasonable to argue that Martin was standing his ground, which they could have done more with.

If it's reasonable to argue it, then argue it. Lay it out for us, what happened. Then explain how your speculation amounts to proving beyond a reasonable doubt Zimmerman wasn't defending himself.

^^^People like that guy are allowed to vote and sit on juries, you know.

Isn't stalking illegal?

Okay, so, maybe you're just taking the piss? Please tell me it's so. If you are, you need to work on your technique. Lay it on a lil' heavier. Your touch is just too light.

Just in case you're serious: no, following someone for the first time is not even remotely stalking, in the legal sense.

If the roles were reversed, as in Martin was stalking Zimmerman, and it led to a physical altercation, wouldn't Zimmerman have had the right to stand his ground?

Depends on who started the altercation, dummy.

I didn't suggest the first happened and, to be honest, no one can say for sure if the second happened the way it was described.

So, you were serious. Heh. Don't they teach you kids about reasonable doubt in the schools anymore?

Most American blacks won't do that.

But if you were looking for one who would, the south would be a good place to try. But with the way this case became a mob affair, it would've been hard for any black to go against the black consensus.

Isn't it unhelpful to the cause of Martin's beatification to repetitively invoke "Skittles n' soda" in some kind of sorry poetic flourish? The kid purchased for to mix up purple drank using cough syrup/codeine back at the house.

For the love of Christ, you people with your "lean" fixation.

For those who are unaware, "lean" or "drank" is made with (1) cough syrup, (2) Sprite, and (3) Jolly Ranchers.

There are variations, of course, but if you ask someone the ingredients for lean, that is what you will hear.

About a year ago, one idiot commenter on one website (who was later banned from the website, mind you) discovers that ONE kid made it with Arizona watermelon juice, and a DIFFERENT kid used Skittles instead of Jolly Ranchers.

Now all of a sudden, Arizona watermelon juice and Skittles are "two out of the three ingredients to make lean", and there's a huge conspiracy all throughout the police department to cover up the fact that his "iced tea" was actually watermelon juice, because they didn't want people to know he was making lean.

And not one of these people ever actually bothered to go onto Google and see for themselves about this theory, because if they had, they would have been completely unable to find a single person who ever made lean with both Skittles and watermelon juice prior to March 2012.

I know it's not a big deal, but jeez. Can't we leave the moronic conspiracy theories to the other side?

As I said in a previous thread, you can see the parallels, in terms of black thinking, between this case and the OJ case.

Blacks murder people and go to jail for it all the time. Blacks are used to it. But OJ was a rich and famous black guy. They didn't care if he was guilty, they just wanted to see him beat the rap.

Blacks are killed all the time, almost always by other blacks, who often go to jail for it. Blacks are used to it. But this black was killed by a non-black. They didn't care if he wasn't guilty, they just wanted to him go to jail.

On Facebook/twitter, black people are livid, posting statuses about how "justice does not exist" every 2-3 minutes.

And lots of well-meaning white people whose knowledge of the case comes from "Skittles and ice tea" snippets in the MSM are egging them on, reposting childhood pictures of little Trayvon and passing on the meme of "racist white gun-nut mows down harmless black child and gets away with it." They think they're being sympathetic, but they're really telling blacks, "Hey, if you want to get some revenge, we'll understand."

The way Nolte puts it, it's starting to make more sense as to why the media put all their chips on black the way they did. D'Wan, the Universe's First Black President/Messiah, said Trademark was his long lost son, and justice muss be done. The president had cast down the gauntlet, and the media would serve as his seconds.

On the storied Today Show, NBC News told America Zimmerman said this on the 911 call:Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

When the truth is that the unedited audio actually went like this:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

That sort of encapsulates the media's entire approach to this case, doesn't it?

Media: "Trayvon went to the store to buy some Skittles, and Zimmerman fatally shot him."

Reality: "Trayvon went to the store to buy some Skittles, ambushed Zimmerman, beat him to the ground, mounted him, pummeled him, beat his head against the concrete, and Zimmerman fatally shot him."

Eventually, several NBC producers would be fired (without being named), and Zimmerman would file a lawsuit against NBC; it remains unresolved.

The irony is, Vick got convicted because of LIBERAL ideologies. SWPLs kinda-sorta like Blacks as pets to fuss over and feel sorry for, particularly when they can use them as clubs to bash "the wrong kind of" Whites -- but they LOVE their dogs.

Just as race trumps gender for Black women, dog-owner trumps anti-racist for Libtards.

The White left is schizophrenic. It's to us normal White folks' misfortune that blacks blame US for their nuttiness.

Yes, Zimmerman got acquitted, and rightly so. But why did it take them so long? 15 hours of deliberating on such an obvious case?

Somebody in that jury needed convincing. At least one person. Maybe more.

Maybe. Or maybe they just wanted to give the appearance of "propriety" to the mob; maybe 15 hours of pro forma deliberations (i.e., rehashing) was their way of appeasing the mob.

But the request for information on manslaughter suggests it was no slam dunk.

True, but it could suggest at least one of a couple of things. It could suggest that they just wanted to make sure that O'Mara was right in his closing statements, that they should just decide on self-defense because that would rule guilt on either charge.

"The purpose of your dishonst sophist BS is to push the idea that doing almost anything around a black teen that he doesn't like counts as justified provocation for him to attack you and for you (if White) to therefore lose any claim to self-defense."

Not to mention Trayvon DOUBLED BACK.Which means that Tray-tray wasn't acting from fear but aggression.

It isn't that Whiskey was wrong about the verdict. I'm sure there are millions who were also wrong. Pundits always intone a warning that you can never predict what a jury will do.

No, we shouldn't criticize Whiskey because he predicted wrong. But it is legitimate to notice why he made that prediction.

He predicted a conviction because in his view all women hate what he calls betas. One obvious problem with this assertion is that it is unclear just what a beta male is. Just as it's unclear what an alpha male is. Or I should say who he is.

Go to the zoo and observe monkey island. It is soon clear as to who is alpha and who beta. But humans live in a far more complex social milieu. A man can be alpha in one sphere and beta in another. Indeed that's the typical finding.

Bill Gates is a typical nerd with weak arms and shoulders who was always picked last on the football field or baseball diamond. Yet in the world of business he was a shark. He sort of killed Gary Kildall.

George Bush (either one) was a mild mannered and wimpy kind of man. Yet he plunged us into a war that many more manly men would have avoided. Alpha or beta. Both Bushes rose the highest position available on this planet. I find it hard to call a man with the power to rain down the heavens a beta.

Whiskey's problem is that for him Alpha/Beta is kind of a Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis a grid through which everything else is viewed.

Presumably the mother-child connection among mammals is at least as strong as male female attraction. So the TV commenters who all seemed to assume that the mothers on the jury would sympathize with Trayvon Martin's mother were closer to the truth than Whiskey who thinks women's eyes are always blurred by their personal sexual attraction or repulsion.

But the maternal bond theorists failed to consider that the mothers on the jury might want a world in which their children might be more safe if there were fewer men running like Martin and would be safer with more 'protector' personalities like George Zimmerman. But of course all this analysis of a jury's decision making process is idle.

It could just be that the six women decided to acquit based on straight forward legal reasoning. Maybe they weren't blinded by their hormones or their nurturing instincts.

" If you're an unfamiliar person in a neighborhood, someone in that neighborhood is perfectly justified in asking you who you are and where you're going (and such interlocutors, being human, will display varying degrees of politeness and couth)"

Agreed.

I was actually followed in my own neighborhood twice as a teenager. We had a neighborhood watch-woman who used to patrol around in an SUV because of recurring vandalism at a nearby private school. When I was wandering around after dark, acting a bit sullen, she stopped to ask me what I was doing, and told me I was not allowed near the grounds of the school after dark. Moral of the story: I was pretty offended, but I certainly did not become aggressive. I just went home.

Liberals assume that only black teenagers get "profiled" while walking around at night. I'm sure the "watchman approaches suspicious-looking teen" scenario happens every other night in a suburb somewhere. Yet only Trayvon was dumb enough to attempt a beat-down in response....

Liberals assume that only black teenagers get "profiled" while walking around at night.

Right, because:

1. Blacks deserved to get profiled more.2. Get caught and punished more because of their behavior.3. Reach, like any good sociopath, for the nearest semi-plausible bullshit at hand to resist punishment.

I've been pulled over while white (and let go without incident) for fitting descriptions of suspects, for being young and in a car with diverse or non-diverse youth, out in the "wrong" neighborhood and/or at the "wrong" time of night, etc. Big whup, poor me.

Yet only Trayvon was dumb enough to attempt a beat-down in response....

I Live in a neighborhood that is in the process of organizing a network of infrared cameras to deter crime. It is entirely private including where the cameras are placed. When finished, it will record clear pictures and the time of every car and person who enters, including at night. And the network will get stronger and stronger because people will keep putting up cameras on their own homes and immediate surroundings. Everybody in the neighborhood has everybody else's e-mail and phone number (there are a couple of holdouts) so the alarm goes up immediately when there is a problem.

I was going for a walk two nights ago and posted to a electric pole was a picture of two teenagers who made an amateurish break in to a house in another neighborhood up the street. Had they driven up they would be caught by now but they walked because they were locals. They will get caught. The other beauty to this is that the cops are obliged to arrest someone when there is so much prima facie evidence that is just handed to them. If they have to come and check for prints or ask neighbors they will never find anything which is why some communities don't bother investigating. Their job is easy.

The other thing is that these cameras are Trayvon proof. With the old school neighborhood watch there is a possible confrontation. This is all neat and clean and out of sight.

Sacrifice a brown man for 'white guilt'. Never mind 50 million South American natives were wiped out by diseases spread by white hispanic conquistadores.

Zimmerman was largely of native south american blood.

Btw, the concept of 'white guilt' is 'racist' since it ascribes to ALL whites the guilt of what some whites did in the past. If it's wrong to blame ALL blacks for the crimes committed by some blacks, it's wrong to blame all whites. It's like blaming all Jews for all eternity for the killing of Jesus. It is irrational.

Libs scoff at the notion of 'original sin' and 'Jews stained with blood of Christ', but all whites for all eternity must bear the guilt for the past.

If whites must feel guilty for past wrongs, can they at least feel white pride in the good things they did? Democracy, ending slavery, modern medicine, airplanes, human rights, etc?

"ot really. She's got one of the most evil faces I've ever seen. I can't get past the evil look. It overcomes any hotness. That bitch is soooo guilty. "The eyes Chico, they never lie.""

They always say that everytime horrible black on white crime occurs and the media covers it quickly while dwelling on the rare reverse cases seemingly forever. All it does is encourage blacks to think of whites as not fighting back or taking control of a situation in which they (whites) are vulnerable. No. I think this sends a message. We Whites are not intimidated by the crime team (most Presidential administrations of recent yrs have been crimes teams) of Obama & Holder. That's what I love about this. The sod-off message it send to them.

Sacrifice a brown man for 'white guilt'. Never mind 50 million South American natives were wiped out by diseases spread by white hispanic conquistadores. "

Zimmerman was largely of native south american blood."

That was then. In the past 100 years the brown/red/black/yellow population has burgeoned exponentially largely due to advances they owe to white technology (flush toilets, running water) and services. While I can't defend the conquistadores, the worst things I've heard of concerning the treatment of South American Indians was the Putomayo Rubber scandal, a torture/murder enterprise largely run by mestizos from the urban areas, with some reluctant blacks from Jamaica, and a Euro or two. It was an Irish journalist who stopped it by writing about in British newspapers and outraging the public. The Congo Kingdom of the King of Belgium was similarly removed (by the westernw world) from his control after his atrocities were exposed by western reporters.I think one of the things that modern westerners can say is that at least there is the concept of equal justice before the law. In so many previous societies, even the concept did not exist, and was one reason why the victims accepted their fate.

"Anonymous said..."ot really. She's got one of the most evil faces I've ever seen. I can't get past the evil look. It overcomes any hotness. That bitch is soooo guilty. "The eyes Chico, they never lie.""

They always say that everytime horrible black on white crime occurs and the media covers it quickly while dwelling on the rare reverse cases seemingly forever. All it does is encourage blacks to think of whites as not fighting back or taking control of a situation in which they (whites) are vulnerable. No. I think this sends a message. We Whites are not intimidated by the crime team (most Presidential administrations of recent yrs have been crimes teams) of Obama & Holder. That's what I love about this. The sod-off message it send to them."

This is garbled. odd. The quote went with an (obviously) different comment.

Perhaps geography/type of community is the difference. Most complexes I've lived in during my 20's in LA, I was unfamiliar with, at least, half of the neighbors..."

It wasn't an apartment complex, full of peole who come and go all the time. It was a gated housing development. The people there were home owners, not renters.

The characterization of what Zimmerman did as "stalking" is ridiculous. If you see strangers engaged in suspicious behavior in your neighborhood, then following them is a sensible thing to do. I've seen suspicious cars in my neighborhood, driving slowly up and down the streets, stopping at this or that house to take a closer look. I drive up right behind them and make a big show about writing down their license plate number. Then I follow them out of the neighborhood to make sure they are gone.

We should not allow our proper sphere of action to be defined by what some young, ignorant, violent thug-wannabe like Trayvon thinks it should be.

I sometimes think there's no turning back in this county's Road to Ruin.

Discussion this morning with an intelligent woman I'm friendly with who reads the Boston Globe every day:

Her: What do you think of this Zimmerman thing?

Me: Pretty much the only verdict to reach.

Her: He didn't have to shoot him! He was just a kid. Zimmerman was way bigger than him. He should have just hit him.

Me: Martin was actually taller than Zimmerman. He was straddling Zimmerman and pounding his head against the curb when he was shot.

Her (now getting a bit shrill): Well, Zimmerman should have stayed in the car! The police told him to!

Me: Uh, no they didn't.

Her: (more shrill still): YES THEY DID!

Me (holding up index finger and tapping laptop): Here's the transcript of the 911 call from Mother Jones. The dispatcher only told him that he didn't have to follow Martin. Here's the store security cam still of Martin buying his Skittles and ice tea.

Her: Wow, he's pretty tall. OK, why do all the papers and news shows say the police TOLD Zimmerman to stay in his car?

eglorat 507A few weeks ago I watched the lie detector test taken by Zimmerman shortly after the shooting which covered all of the points later taken up by the prosecution. The entire lie test was posted on Youtube, as was Trayvon Martin's purchase of the world-famous Skittles and drink. From the demeanor of both - and from the reaction of the questioner in the police lie-detector test to Zimmerman, and the way he was treated by another member of the police (a woman) also shown on that video tape, I could see that the police were comfortable with dealing with the eminently respectful, well-spoken Zimmerman. Perhaps I am nothing but a racist at heart (certainly not in my behavior or conscious mind) but watching Trayvon Martin in the shop, with the infamous hoodie covering up his face and his uncomfortable-looking demeanor made me immediately concerned. If I had been another customer in the shop or the clerk, I would have been wary of him.

Anyone else see these videos? Anyone else have a reaction similar to mine?

I would imagine that the jury felt something similar to my reaction, even though they were not shown either of those video tapes.

" Here's the store security cam still of Martin buying his Skittles and ice tea.

Her: Wow, he's pretty tall. OK, why do all the papers and news shows say the police TOLD Zimmerman to stay in his car?"

Yeah i've shown people that picture. A lot of sensible people were suckered by the media showing the photo of him looking like a little kid. Once they've seen that store photo their expression changes.

What kind of precedent was set by allowing this preposterous show trial to go forward?

Wannabe tough guy Trayvon did not have a CCW, and he went around “provoking” people with his fists and the occasional piece of pavement. Although, I remember that there was at least one photo of him showing off a handgun.

You’re acting like CCW was just invented yesterday and that the Zimmerman incident was an unprecedented event. Liberals were always predicting rivers of blood running in the streets, daily road rage murders and “Wild West” gun duels if CCW became reality. They were wrong. That doesn’t stop them from trotting out the usual fantastic, hysterical nonsense whenever the topic comes up. In fact, they are doing it again with the passing of CCW in IL, the last state in the union to pass some type of concealed carry law.

I think what they are doing is noting the mayhem in the ghetto, and extrapolating that to imagine that would be the behavior of the population as a whole if they carried weapons. Because in their demented little minds, it is the GUN that makes gangbangers behave that way. No guns and PRESTO! Peace on Earth!

Svigor:“Let's hope Martin's lawyers thoroughly sodomize NBC.”

Besides various members of the kangaroo court, some other worthy targets might include Spike Lee and the New Black Panthers.

I'm still torn on this one. On the one hand, Zimmerman instigated the conflict by stalking Martin when the police were already on their way. What options did Martin have? Run? That's what blacks used to do and they would become suspected of wrongdoing because they ran.

Did Zimmerman really fear for his life, knowing he had a firearm as insurance? Is it possible he deliberately created the confrontation knowing he had a firearm?

The prosecution was inept. It's reasonable to argue that Martin was standing his ground, which they could have done more with.

Isn't stalking illegal?

If the roles were reversed, as in Martin was stalking Zimmerman, and it led to a physical altercation, wouldn't Zimmerman have had the right to stand his ground?

Anonymous 10:57,

You talk like a very shy person. If Zimmerman began an encounter, so what? Are you afraid to talk to a stranger?

If Zimmerman was planning going to shoot or coerce Martin, he could have done so far more easily than by having his head smashed into concrete.

Besides, Trayvon had plenty of time to reach his father's girl's house. He chose to stay in place, or to double back

This isn't directed at you per se, but the numb nuts who are reading too much into my comments and making wild conclusions on what my political background is and insulting me. Some of you are way too emotional about this case.

This particular case seems clear cut to you, ONLY because Zimmerman profiled correctly(and there is nothing wrong with profiling). But what troubles me is when the next Zimmerman profiles incorrectly and gets acquitted, because dead men tell no tales.

Very witty. However, I was not saying I had ever actually done it (though I did once drink some Arizona watermelon juice with Skittles in it to see if it was something anyone would want to drink. It was, well, interesting. If you like sickeningly sweet stuff.).

My point was that people were treating his purchase of watermelon juice and Skittles as some kind of smoking gun that he was getting ready to mix up purple drank with, when a quick Google search revealed that, not only are those not the traditional ingredients for it, but apparently, nobody had ever done it that way.

I just didn't really think it put the pro-Zimmerman side in the best light, is all.

Good thing you have so much imagination, since it doesn't seem to happen very often in real life. Lots of wannabe tough guys with illegal weapons go around provoking and killing people, of course, but it's pretty hard to find examples of CCW holders doing it.

This case doesn't set any precedent at all. Self-defense and the right to bear arms aren't exactly new legal concepts.

"his particular case seems clear cut to you, ONLY because Zimmerman profiled correctly(and there is nothing wrong with profiling). But what troubles me is when the next Zimmerman profiles incorrectly and gets acquitted, because dead men tell no tales.

One more time. Zimmerman did not attack the man. The man attacked him. Zimmerman had turned away without any glimmer of assault. The man then turned around and attacked Zimmerman, armed with "nose-breaking" fists, as Zimmerman's brother Robert said. Robert also also called Pierce Morgan "irresponsible" in the way he kept trying to keep the lying MSM narrative going. Morgan backed off

I think he was guilty, but he had his day in court, and was exonerated by a jury of his peers; good for him. Hopefully he will take his reprieve and start being less of an asshole.

This is a great nation, sometimes the justice system misses out but hey, people get killed every day, so all in all, I don't give a shit, you were emotionally attached to the railroading of your WHITE brother. It was nothing more than an intellectual exercise for me, and as usual, I scored quite high.

Get it throuth your thick head: Zimmerman did not "provoke" Martin - he asked a reasonable question of an unknown stranger wandering through his neighborhood in the rain, looking into windows.

And the treatment that Zimmerman got is qute sufficient to deter others from making the same decisions he made. Getting arrested, tried, and facing the prospect of imprisonment and death is a powerful deterrent for most people. To paraphrase Chef from "Apocalypse Now": "Never get out of the car. Never get out of the car."

However, for the Trayvons of the world, as stupid and impulsive as they are, the event may prove to have little deterrent value.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.